[Devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] Protect cinit from fatal signals
Bastian Blank
bastian at waldi.eu.org
Wed Nov 26 17:07:53 PST 2008
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 07:46:34PM -0800, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> To protect container-init from fatal signals, set SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE but
> clear it if it receives SIGKILL from parent namespace - so it is still
> killable from ancestor namespace.
This sounds like a workaround.
> Note that container-init is still somewhat special compared to 'normal
> processes' - unhandled fatal signals like SIGUSR1 to a container-init
> are dropped even if they are from ancestor namespace. SIGKILL from an
> ancestor namespace is the only reliable way to kill a container-init.
It sounds not right to make this special case for a "normal" process.
However, no idea how to do this better.
Bastian
--
The heart is not a logical organ.
-- Dr. Janet Wallace, "The Deadly Years", stardate 3479.4
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
More information about the Devel
mailing list